• #2
    Of course tax more people out of your shitty city. You give in to the unions and this is what you get.
  • #47
    The only thing I disagree with is "the shitty city" portion of your statement. As an almost lifelong Chicago resident, I love the city. Granted, it's your opinion(which you ate entitled to) and Chicago is not for everyone.

    That said, the problems are not Rahms making. They come from the two plus decades of King Richard (Daley) giving in to every whim of the unions to secure votes, and then not making the payments to fund the pension obligations.

    On a side note, I used to support public employee unions. That is until the Chicago teacher's union strike last fall and my more recent fight with the social security administration. I have seen firsthand the incompetence of some public union employees.
  • #83
    About 80% of the people in this country are hard working non-union employees so why the hell should it be their responsibility to bail out those who are part of failed ideals? We already paid inflated prices when locked into union labor cost because of state and city mandates.
  • R Load more replies

  • #18

    I was looking for "Both make no sense" Dimocrat is not good for any city, unless you love Detroit in your back yard...LOL!
  • #26
    Blaming the president for everything is a very simplistic reply.

    The state of New Jersey is in the same situation as the city of Chicago, but probably worse because it's bigger. Pensions are eating up my beloved home state and the appropriate question is how did this happen?

    I believe that the answer is seen in the radical increase in the number of policemen and state employees that have been hired since I was a little kid in the fifties or even as a teenager in the sixties.

    The town that I grew up in boasted a police force of maybe a dozen cops when it had a population of about thirteen thousand. Today, that population is around the same, but the town now employs seventy-five cops, all of whom can retire in their forties with a full pension.

    My familiarity with state and county employees is a bit shaky, so I do not know the minute details of their employment, but I imagine it is reasonably similar to the police.

    Obviously, the cops are a town expense and do not effect the state's financial problems directly. Indirectly they do, because the towns have to raise their property taxes to pay for the police benefits and by doing so make it more difficult for the citizens to absorb increased state taxes.

    Nothing in this world operates in a bubble like a pharmaceutical study of a product would like it to be. Everything works synergistically and is set up much like a row of dominoes. Change one aspect of that row and we get a completely different result.

    That is the problem with correcting mistakes when one is dealing with such a large and complicated issue as local, state and federal economies. Someone always gets hurt by the mistakes, but everyone doesn't always benefit from the corrections.

    Personally, I do not believe there is a solution without someone being seriously hurt or even ruined. The choice is, will it be the tax payer or the employee? Because of our laws and the fact that the legal system will always back its allies, the tax payer will probably be the recipient of a larger tax bill rather than a discontinuance of pension benefits for the retired.
  • #37
    @Ryunkin Everybody wants everything and nobody wants to pay for it. It's been the American way ever since we started this failed experiment in 1981. Tax cuts for all and increased spending! Deficits don't matter! Kick the unpaid liabilities down the road! More guns! More police! More tax cuts! More! More! More!
  • #65
    @AceLuby Now maybe you can see why I find it difficult to agree with either the liberals or the conservatives, because they are both very much the entire problem. The truth is, examples currently exist of both socialist and capitalist nations that work for the benefit of their citizens, without skewing the books, but you will notice, however, that these examples are always countries that have people with common sense and who are relatively honesty in their administrations. America's problem, like many other nations of the world, is inherently one of morality. In other words, we have bred several generations of people with no definition for honesty. Coupled with the fact, that as time has passed, our laws have become so complicated, that no one truly understands them. In such a vacuum, dishonest people can claim whatever they like without substantial refutation, since there are no longer any concrete definitions.
  • #113
    @Ryunkin There is truth in what you say, but you also over looked a few other contributing factors. Many of the countries that your refer to have a fairly homogeneous population whereas the US has a diverse cultural society. Whereas once our diversity was our strength, the hyper practice of identity politics has made it a weakness.
  • R Load more replies

  • #17
    Chicago can fix their own problems. Another city that is proof of what results when you have one party control something for too long.
  • #56
    @AceLuby Having lived in a State which has had 102 years of 1 party rule (forget about any occasional Republican Governor NM has had or its current Republican Mayor of its largest city- the Powerhouses are City Council, County Commission and NM State Legislature- solidly Democratic) and is near the bottom of nearly every undesirable category except for pay, pension plans, 'double-dipping' and health benefits for public employees, the proof is not just limited to Chicago. NYC has also had some very tough times in the past, once coming near to bankruptcy. And of course, then there are the big cities in NJ and Michigan too which can be counted as proof.
  • #111
    @AceLuby No it's fact. Philadelphia, Wash DC, Detroit, Chicago......alll run by libs for decades. All Broke, Murder Capitols of the USA.

    You broke it, you fix it.
  • #5
    They should be democratic and let the citizens of the State of Illinois decide if they want to pay for more of Chicago's fuck ups.
  • #10
    Let the taxpayers decide? That is a double edged sword. On the one hand, the people voted for these big spenders who promised to tax only the rich. On the other hand. some of the voters now realize the rich can simply move. Then there are the voters who think the answer will always be a bailout from DC. In the end, a bailout will be the 'solution', because after all, the people of Chicago can't be expected to shoulder this burden alone, and those workers are entitled to their pensions.
  • #30
    @Realthinker They voted in the pols who agreed to these outrageous pension plans. I don't see why they shouldn't pay for what they wrought. These are UNION pensions. Obama will make sure they are paid.
  • #39
    @Canoochee The people signing those plans agreed to them and it's up to them to figure out how to pay for it. If I hired you to do a job for $x and then when it was done decided that $x was too much and instead decide to pay half of that, would you or would you not feel screwed? Just because we kicked the can down the road for so long because nobody has balls to actually PAY for the things they want doesn't mean it's the fault of those who created the agreement in the first place.
  • #48
    @AceLuby you act like the public unions weren't involved on getting the people who signed the agreement elected in the first place.
  • #71
    @Realthinker I agree, DC signs your name to the bailout check, most don't get this, some know they charge a huge handling fee.
  • R Load more replies

  • #15
    Neither one of these leftist fools has a point. They are saying "lets do the same thing we've been doing for decades and see if anything changes." This, folks, is what you get when you continue to vote for lying, thieving democrats who promise to keep the "free" stuff flowing. Sooner or later, you run out of other people's money.
  • #40
    You mean pay the bills that come up? Oh, what a damn travesty! I know it's not the GOP way, they'd just renig on the deal instead of paying the money they promised they would pay for the job done.

    And when Bush got the presidency promising tax cuts for all, how is that not promising 'free stuff'. It is and your partisan blinders are on so tight you don't even see it. Tax cuts for all everyone! Deficits don't matter! We'll just blame democrats!
  • #121
    @AceLuby lmao. The leftist mind is sad. So, just to clarify....I work my ass off for 50 hrs., the liberal god confiscates 20%. Then they decide they'll only confiscate 15%, and that's "giving me 'free stuff?'" Bawahaha. Pathetic. Here's a lesson in reality. I WORKED FOR THAT "FREE STUFF." Which means it wasn't free.
  • #122
    @AceLuby when you literally steal more money from people the god of liberal confiscation to pay those "promises", you're damn right that it's wrong. These leftists keep promising they'll hand out the lucrative benefits, then when they can't afford it, when the bill comes due, they just go steal more money from other people to pay it. That's a far cry from letting me keep money I worked for. Liberalism is truly a mental disease.
  • #132

    Wow do you realize what you said?

    Now I am sure that the democrats have become the conservative party, so that must mean that the republicans have become the activist, let's dive in without thinking of all the unintended consequences, CONGRATULATIONS!!!!
  • R Load more replies

  • #31
    They should have changed the title to " Democrats scramble to get blood out of stone"

    The only way to fix their pension problems is to reduce benefits.
  • #32
    Another appropriate title for this story would have been " Democratic politicians caught in Ponzi scheme"
  • #33
    Sign of things to come, states and cities unable to fund their pensions. This will increasingly become a major problem for our country. One of my best friends recently retired from the city at 55 after 30 years of service and receives 80% of his salary in retirement and receives insurance benefits as well. These payments and benefits could easily extend for 30 more years. Does anyone really think this type of financial model can be sustained? I am sure glad that I am not dependent on other taxpayers in order to receive my retirements benefits as the city and state employees are.
  • #46
    I am too, because the taxpayers just want to not pay these people because everybody wants a functioning govt that provides services they use, but don't want to pay for it.
  • #49
    @AceLuby please keep on pretending that is it and it is not because of the outrageously generous amount of the pensions.
  • #57
    @AceLuby The problem here in New Mexico has been EVER DECREASING SERVICES & EVER INCREASING TAXES. Another phenomenon we are seeing year in and year out, FEWER AGENCIES HAVING THEIR TELEPHONE NUMBERS in the White Pages, and some that do have the wrong number or a fax number rather than a voice number. This is happening at the Municipal, County, State and Federal level. We get 'the message': "Don't bother us!".
  • #115
    @AceLuby Yes, people do want a functioning government. But in order to have a functioning government, there needs to be some fiscal sanity. Retirement after 20 years of service with obscenely generous pensions is not a sustainable model. It was a train wreck that was predicted decades ago and now its coming to fruition. So is your answer to continue to tax the private sector more and more to allow public sector retirees a comfy retirement?
  • #11
    The democrat 'plan' always includes taking more and more money from people who actually produce, and giving it to those who do not. Now that dangerous scheme is bankrupting cities, and will bankrupt the entire country if the voters allow it to happen.

    Sadly, with most democrat voters unable to find Chicago on a map, it's unlikely that the trend will reverse.
  • #85
    Except that the only people "actually producing anything" are the Union workers.
    You sign a contract, you honor it. Can't pay? Here's some cheese and whine.
    Either your contractual agreements are backed by your credibility and trustworthiness and cold hard cash, or you are just a dirtbag who can't be trusted when you ink the bottom line.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #125
    @Unfit2serve Yeah, the unions 'produced' GM and Chrysler right into bankruptcy.

    But, that's neither here nor there. The few remaining taxpayers will get stuck with the bill for Chicago's reckless spending and political paybacks for union votes. When the wells of Chicago's taxpayers are finally tapped out, the rest of the nation's taxpayers will foot the bill.

    Isn't that 'spreading the wealth around a little bit, " just like Obama promised?
  • #64
    There is no answer except that the liberals got themselves into a fix they can't figure out how to get out of. Taxpayers don't need to fund anybody's retirement. The bird has come to roost again. Wake up America!
  • #27
    I would not trust Emanuel about anything. But, the people of Chicago deserve him...they elected him. Now they have with it.
  • #22
    Democrats exemplify the meaning of insanity, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
  • #44
    Yeah, how dare they actually pay for programs. Do it like the GOP and claim deficits don't matter, or even better, just ignore the deal altogether.
  • #58
    Congress pays for nothing. We the taxpayer do. And yes the GOP doesn't want to spend taxpayer money on crap.
  • #3
    Property taxes are a fact of life for the majority of states. If Chicago requires property taxes to meet their obligations, then the city should get the property taxes they have already passed within the city without the interference of the state governor. It looks like the governor made promises that can not be met. Especially a property tax refund of $500. He then further made a mistake on dates on the law he passed concerning educators. Did no one crunch the numbers before he passed this law? Further, did no one fact read the bill to catch the date mistake before the bill became a law? If I were an educator at retirement age, I too would retire before the mistaken date came to protect myself. Who wouldn't? Chicago needs the money to fulfill the pensions and I don't believe the governor can supply the money from the state coffers to do so.
  • #14
    Yep tax the shit out of people to protect the unions, you guys need those union contributions it's election time soon anyways.
  • #16
    I am not for unions, but Chicago made their own choice and now have to fulfill their obligations.
  • #42
    @BelinKS Agreed. If you're going to pass something, you have to pay for it. Wish they would have done it in the 2000's when we built up this huge deficit.
  • #8
    Any branch of government or government official or government employee that supports and/ or participates in unfunded pensions should be banned from any such position for life. I can't imagine anyone stupid enough to support such absurd reasoning let alone get away with pulling it over on the taxpayers... oh, wait... stupid taxpayers... I wish I could get away with that in my business - everybody can retire with a great pension and lifetime benefits and all I need is for some flying unicorns to shit hundred-dollar bills into my bank account.
  • #41
    The fact that their unfunded is because nobody wants to pay for the services they receive. Everyone wants their services and they want it for free. That's not a problem w/ govt or govt officials, it's a problem with VOTERS who vote themselves 'free stuff' and 'tax cuts' while complaining about the debt.
  • #87
    Every private company that offers pensions also runs them as unfunded liabilities.
    There is no "government plot" here, sorry.
  • #95
    @Unfit2serve - Private pensions are underfunded liabilities because they are unsustainable. Pensions are plastic carrots on the stick to drive workers to produce and remain loyal...

    I wouldn't accept a company pension plan when I can fair better investing on my own...
  • #98
    And that is your perogotive. My point was you sign the piece of paper-you honor it. The very first time we allowed any organization, private or government to skate on a contract with workers......contracts became meaningless. It is interesting that pensions were the rule, rather than the exception for the years 1946-1975.......and most people's folks (our parents who are now in their 70's - 80's) all got their pensions, no worries, no problems. A big reason for that was that pension funds were sacrosanct and could not be raided by gov'ts or private companies and they remained viable. We need to look at who (Rep or Dem) changed our laws to allow the "dipping into" of pension funds, and I suspect BOTH parties (which represent only our American Big Bus Oligarch's interests) are to blame.
  • #108
    @Unfit2serve - I agree, a contract should be honored.

    But when it isn't honored, one should sue in civil court, not try to make new laws or ask the taxpayers to bail you out.

    And the pension fund isn't really getting raided as much as they've reached a point that pension payouts exceed profits. Any business (including gov't) that has been around for more then a few decades pays pensioners more than they pay current workers.
  • #80
    You just might be more right tan anyone wants to talk about. Is there a end game plan and if so what the hell is it?
  • #69
    Chicago is the next Democrat ran city to fail...Democrats purely tax and truly is all that they know.
  • R Load more comments...